IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https

Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com> Fri, 19 March 2021 20:58 UTC

Return-Path: <bemasc@google.com>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03E513A1027 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -17.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zfGGlXBIU7R0 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x330.google.com (mail-wm1-x330.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::330]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6363A3A1026 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x330.google.com with SMTP id f22-20020a7bc8d60000b029010c024a1407so7980061wml.2 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=dVuwQBv5QdJ/rAvQx+cCjNRft0Fy+m3jfVlF0NNsk04=; b=ull58TOmrm5Wa1yXXpoQ76sdnu+OaQEeQ9d1nQ273MsdSLZdCiKBNolsa1vtAu4p+g E7dzD+J0ZjSSEPaMIt0tMmlyPpGpg5VMvp3nntI4W+PjszV4sEDMOMz6uT+dyL77IUG3 rm3Alizn3rpfb/5ZBkSlFxNRzYOWToWUgH9VZ/59R4LIFCxXznpVu52xfzMXXq8FYgDJ BrJxZp0tvTZL/hSuAo3NfR6baj0zVLEzEkqpgrJAN6eoA9YWZ2h5Ra9wVv08ZskS+nWX 5KWfHudXP6Eov1Uu7yndei5HnIfLgZbEa/vMV2GRUo3zvMC2v9qH5J9ku832S7KfY6MR 8urw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=dVuwQBv5QdJ/rAvQx+cCjNRft0Fy+m3jfVlF0NNsk04=; b=fBNKmoYOZ5EENztnN84RLMVqgyOPzshka1x3fBKU2RRQDp8mKtGtMEg+MkgnFLR1M9 IwZ9vfsSd8PIZ6gUMqUDpVwW89AtLmwWaSVL1+S1Z7XuvmneBmoYDLZxPDHse5u7vYz6 jb9eNoJ3Lt1t5U9fI2ioK/kjHIDtO3Jgsd8N1nkMmcLQJLEK29PzDaxxykAzIgwibGoh 2upizM25+bKFAT2e1U0CrVV9406Gpps3+Ivt2i9CBDTqe6IIAbM/83IDiA3lRrEXCNc4 xo5NdY7257TjqwwwRwj9j0KUUWOrTCKaNSpLXqOIarFzvGGkt5pO6zdJ8nOnEdKPY6cc ySaw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533GdTiMb0pBenpdE/4pFudvFFJbrkubDIcu6OyubMdttIOnyRBA vxMTYKaSLXde33Z9peEFhaSYDza4/k54xfaXpqzguxvJlnQoOw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwETGPqF9/MlCpEzl2YhocB/T0guVGcr5JNgB7xYrFSiO2JB4/TCuYD39nUSfwMHDlYd4xNTOeSyCkj4esAC9M=
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:7209:: with SMTP id n9mr5407957wmc.132.1616187489802; Fri, 19 Mar 2021 13:58:09 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CADyWQ+Hg=XcMjT5BOxeV0F25sAT5QSZOEcdMHZiH1s0sS=1KzQ@mail.gmail.com> <15bd4599-e96b-0324-c64a-8206db9e80b7@powerdns.com>
In-Reply-To: <15bd4599-e96b-0324-c64a-8206db9e80b7@powerdns.com>
From: Ben Schwartz <bemasc@google.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 16:57:58 -0400
Message-ID: <CAHbrMsA4dWHLyP8mvsap1uhpUuosMmh_4SnVrtRtSnG8Oc+EDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pieter Lexis <pieter.lexis@powerdns.com>
Cc: dnsop <dnsop@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="0000000000003d5ed505bde9f971"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/1wP3VXe6e-x6k6nhHwj538WX3AM>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-dnsop-svcb-https
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2021 20:58:14 -0000

On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 6:13 AM Pieter Lexis <pieter.lexis@powerdns.com>
wrote:

> Or is mandatory a hint to the end-client that it MUST understand the
> keys mentioned in order to use the RR?


Exactly.

If that is the case, a few words
> to that effect would be good.
>

Section 7 says:

   In a ServiceMode RR, a SvcParamKey is considered "mandatory" if the
>    RR will not function correctly for clients that ignore this
>    SvcParamKey.

...

>    A ServiceMode RR is considered "compatible" with a client if the
>    client recognizes all the mandatory keys, and their values indicate
>    that successful connection establishment is possible.  If the SVCB
>    RRSet contains no compatible RRs, the client will generally act as if
>    the RRSet is empty.


Can you suggest a clarification?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email